Two developers pitch competing designs for Verona’s 2159 Range Trail site; council asks for more detail on density, pricing and traffic

Two development teams presented distinct visions for Verona’s 20‑acre 2159 Range Trail site at the Oct. 27 council meeting, and alderpersons asked staff to return with more detailed, comparable cost and traffic information before selecting a preferred proposer.

Fiduciary Real Estate (Tony DeRosa) proposed a 329‑unit community with a mix of three‑story corridor buildings, townhomes and “stacked flats,” emphasizing step‑down building heights adjacent to single‑family homes. DeRosa said his firm’s land offer is guided by a per‑unit figure of $17,500 — the number the firm used to calculate its purchase price — and described Apex at Verona as a nearby proof of execution. “We designed something that we thought was realistic, fit into the neighborhood, and can actually be approved and built,” he said.

Cascade Development (Luke Stofficker) offered a menu of options, including a base offer of $6,000,000 tied to about 325 units and higher purchase prices if the city allows greater density. Cascade emphasized sustainability elements — a greenhouse, native plantings, tree groves, walking trails and community garden features — and said it prefers local contractors. Stofficker described flexibility on unit mix and noted some high‑density build options in the appendix to the firm’s proposal.

Council reaction and request for more information: Members raised consistent concerns about density adjacent to single‑family homes, how to create a transition zone (shorter buildings, berms, tree buffers), the viability of on‑site retail and the traffic signal/transportation risk that could affect project cost. Several alderpersons asked staff to ask both proposers to provide comparable per‑unit pricing at low/medium/high density scenarios, traffic‑impact benchmarks showing when a signal might be required, and clearer community‑engagement plans. Some councilmembers said they favored higher long‑term revenue to help the city’s tight capital budget; others urged stronger neighborhood buffering and more local amenities.

No selection: The council did not choose a developer at the meeting and directed staff to return with additional evaluations and traffic information at a future council meeting.